Yawn. I assume you are dedicating your life to saving every 3rd world human out there, sacrificing anything in your life that is unnecessary so others can live. No? Then get off your high horse.
…and save the panda!
Do we know if the baby is cute? And don’t gimme the “all babies are cute” line, I’ve seen some godawful nasty looking babies.
If there’s time enough for one? There is time enough for two. One over each shoulder and run like hell. The one which gives the most grief is the one that gets left on the path.
More than enough humans, one or two less? Who’s going to notice?
I ask one question to those saving the baby: can you ride a human into combat? No, no you cannot. Well, you could try, but it would be suicidal.
No, the proper answer is to rescue the panda and raise it as your beloved companion, and then when the time comes ride the panda into war and overthrow the dynasties of man. And then once you have conquered, use your renewed strength and vigor to invade the spirit realm. There, after you have defeated the souls of man and beast alike, you will find the spirit of that poor child that you left drowning and you can take it back to the realm of mortals and give it form, allowing it to live the life it deserved.
But if you save the human? You will never ride it into combat, and thus you will never conquer the lands of men, let alone the spirit world and that panda will be lost to you forever.
Well, Rebellion, I only noticed 1 of the 55,465,782 deaths so far this year. (And climbing.)
But then again I was pretty busy.
I would drown them both and anyone who tried to save either, muahahaha.
Dude, think of how many more people you could kill with a panda combat mount.
Meh… too much work!!! I don’t have the kind of money to feed and raise a panda. I do like how voraciously you are defending your panda mounting theory though. Please don’t let me stop you.
I entered this thread thinking it was a joke thread. I honestly thought that anyone who voted ‘save the panda’ was just having some fun. Then the ‘save the baby’ crowd started acting all self-righteous as if they were really moral high priests for simply SAVING A HELPLESS HUMAN BABY FROM DROWNING!, and I was annoyed that they were actually taking it all seriously. THEN, I realized that some people in this thread REALLY WERE SAYING THEY WOULD SAVE THE PANDA OVER THE BABY!
Then I just started to laugh and weep at the same time…laugh and weep and slowly eat a cereal bowl full of cyanide.
I would save the panda, then go back and drown drewtwo99, and only then fish out and try to resuscitate the human baby.
Drowning scions of endangered species pisses me off.
Batman’s killed apes before; I don’t see why a panda would be a higher priority. And that’s not counting all the people he’s murdered by refusing to look the other way when some beat cop decided to send Killer Croc to Tartarus.
I don’t think we’ve discussed whether the baby was a Third World baby or a First World baby, either. A First World baby grows up to consume a thousand times more resources than a Third World baby, but a Third World baby isn’t likely to grow up and be very productive; in fact, a Third World baby has a good chance of not growing up at all.
But… but… baby pandas are so cute that they get floated around FB!
Sorry… it is floating around FB today and I couldn’t resist because it is a cute picture.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled high horses…
Just so you don’t feed any to the panda.
I’m sorry. My previous answer was an obvious joke. I would rescue the baby but then throw it to the panda to use as a buoy to cling to. There, is everyone happy?
Wait, this might completely change my analysis of your ability to psycho-analyze Mitt Romney.
I think we may need to keep you alive to pick your brain for science.
But you don’t get to feed the zoo animals.